soo. pro-gun nuts: If we all agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. AND being a vet automatically means you have "issues" that cause you to be trigger-happy. should we ban all vets owning guns? sounds pretty retarded, eh? so does your automatic defense of "oh, hes a vet hes cooky"

If you read anything I (the OP) have said, you'd realize your statement is completely false. I've clearly stated I have no issue with gun ownership, but a HUGE issue with the mentality that a lot of people seem to have that it's perfectly fine to shoot people under the most ridiculous circumstances.

How could anybody possibly defend the guy? I know people have said it in this thread, but I have to assume anybody who actually thinks the old guy did nothing wrong would be trolling, because it's just so unreasonable to say. Maybe at least just being devil's advocates to spark a debate.

But there's nothing to debate. What this guy did was not only illegal (you cannot shoot someone for pulling up and being on your lawn or driveway), but it was immoral (you don't shoot someone because they MIGHT be violent and armed. You only shoot them if you are damn well sure they are).

Bottom line is: this old guy was wrong in what he did and should be punished accordingly. Maybe he was profiling, maybe he's just trigger happy, but he did something wrong.

That's why people are debating about gun control - because they assume that's the point you were trying to make when posting this article. They assume this because debating whether or not this guy was in the wrong is so obvious it's not even worth debate.

An interesting argument, unfortunately I believe it demonstrates the opposite of the point you are trying to get across. Notice how countries that do not have nuclear capabilities are able to be bullied around by those that do. Now imagine if only 1 country in the world had nuclear power, what do you think would happen if this country was not so benevolent? Nobody would have power to stand against them. This is why I think think gun argument is retarded, if we want to abolish guns, we should abolish ALL guns, including those used by police, governments etc (Obviously this is an impossibility) which is why I think in the end to gain overall safety against a potentially evil force we sacrifice a little personal safety, if you do not fear your government, you are a fool. Where power exists corruption exists. The more power the more corruption.

The true problem exists in the mentality that human life is so worthless (other than your own) and the paranoia that everyone is out to get you. Responsible gun ownership needs to be taught, responsible humanity needs to be taught (unfortunately it has slipped through the cracks lately, with selfishness, apathy, and paranoia ruling the day). Sadly the media fuels this paranoia, apathy, and selfishness by promoting and flaunting every possible error a human can commit. So while something that you should not be scared of (because it almost never happens) suddenly seems the norm and an irrational fear is born, when enough people have this irrational fear it starts to become a realistic fear, and slowly society shifts downward into a cesspool of shit, where indeed people are not capable of being responsible enough to own a weapon (of any type).

Well, without spreading the resources & know how for building a nuclear bomb and the fact that those bombs are not for sale, you regulate them. Sure, those who really want to have them will get them anyway but the number of those is small. And it is much better to have only 3 potential threats than having 100+ potential threats.
And in my opinion it is much better to have a small number of strictly controlled gun owners than to have 30% of all households equipped with weapons. Sure, in most cases there will not be any problem ever. But those dumb cowboys are a huge problem!

How could anybody possibly defend the guy? I know people have said it in this thread, but I have to assume anybody who actually thinks the old guy did nothing wrong would be trolling, because it's just so unreasonable to say. Maybe at least just being devil's advocates to spark a debate.

But there's nothing to debate. What this guy did was not only illegal (you cannot shoot someone for pulling up and being on your lawn or driveway), but it was immoral (you don't shoot someone because they MIGHT be violent and armed. You only shoot them if you are damn well sure they are).

Bottom line is: this old guy was wrong in what he did and should be punished accordingly. Maybe he was profiling, maybe he's just trigger happy, but he did something wrong.

That's why people are debating about gun control - because they assume that's the point you were trying to make when posting this article. They assume this because debating whether or not this guy was in the wrong is so obvious it's not even worth debate.

The old man was obviously wrong. The point that I'm trying to make is that the problem with guns is the mentality that people have that it's fine to shoot people if you even remotely think they could do you any harm. If you look at the posts people are making, they're saying it's understandable that he'd pull out a gun because the guy was in his property. For some reason, some people think that because this article was posted, it means that I want all guns banned forever for some reason. Given that this old man had no criminal record before that, it shows that the issue isn't as clear cut as just keeping the guns out of obviously mentally unstable people. There's this hostile/paranoid mentality that needs to go away.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle
Also, it's should HAVE. NOT "should of". "Should of" doesn't even make sense. If you think you should own a cat, do you say "I should of a cat" or "I should have a cat"? Do you HAVE cats, or do you OF cats?

Have you seen what happens when a baseball bat meets glass? Were talking some seriously dangerous shards, the driver would have been blinded at the very least.

Most windscreens are shatterproof. If a 69 year old was charging at him with a knife or bat he might of had a chance to get out his car run to the shop get some smokes run back to his car and get away quickly.

How could anybody possibly defend the guy? I know people have said it in this thread, but I have to assume anybody who actually thinks the old guy did nothing wrong would be trolling, because it's just so unreasonable to say. Maybe at least just being devil's advocates to spark a debate.

But there's nothing to debate. What this guy did was not only illegal (you cannot shoot someone for pulling up and being on your lawn or driveway), but it was immoral (you don't shoot someone because they MIGHT be violent and armed. You only shoot them if you are damn well sure they are).

Bottom line is: this old guy was wrong in what he did and should be punished accordingly. Maybe he was profiling, maybe he's just trigger happy, but he did something wrong.

That's why people are debating about gun control - because they assume that's the point you were trying to make when posting this article. They assume this because debating whether or not this guy was in the wrong is so obvious it's not even worth debate.

Maybe his defense was the classic South Park quote: "His car was commin' right for us!" :P

The old man was obviously wrong. The point that I'm trying to make is that the problem with guns is the mentality that people have that it's fine to shoot people if you even remotely think they could do you any harm.

Due to the fact that guns most of the cases are not used as a last resort measure but as the first resort measure. Making rate of accidents or missfire (trigger happy guys, yay!) so high. That and the lack of other normal defences, like I said before, a freakin' fence arround your property, entrance locked in front of your driveway, makes the vast majority of gun owners feel safe just because they own a gun. I think some of them don't even lock their house door, because when you have a gun for protection why take any other minor steps to protect yoursef, right?

The old man was obviously wrong. The point that I'm trying to make is that the problem with guns is the mentality that people have that it's fine to shoot people if you even remotely think they could do you any harm. If you look at the posts people are making, they're saying it's understandable that he'd pull out a gun because the guy was in his property. For some reason, some people think that because this article was posted, it means that I want all guns banned forever for some reason. Given that this old man had no criminal record before that, it shows that the issue isn't as clear cut as just keeping the guns out of obviously mentally unstable people. There's this hostile/paranoid mentality that needs to go away.

It's understandable that he'd pull a gun. It's not understandable that he'd pull the trigger. Even the most paranoid of men would shoot a warning shot in this case. I don't think anybody is actually trying to defend this old guy in what he did unless they're just trying to be antagonistic.

People are assuming your thread is about gun control simply because the only other thing your thread could be about is whether or not this guy was in the wrong, which is too obvious a question to ask. I'm just sayin'.

Originally Posted by mvallas

Maybe his defense was the classic South Park quote: "His car was commin' right for us!" :P

You would have a valid point... if South Park produced anything worth calling "classic" >.>

People are assuming your thread is about gun control simply because the only other thing your thread could be about is whether or not this guy was in the wrong, which is too obvious a question to ask. I'm just sayin'.

Of course it is. Since with stricter gun regulations he would have not have the gun legaly, making this whole situation avoidable. And before you go on the "well he can just buy it illegal" im sure a 69 year old won't do it. And the worst thing about this whole case is, even if he gets convicted, he won't prob make it 10 years inside, while the "kid" will still be dead, making any finiancial estimate on how much the whole situation costed the state just mindblowing. As in he died young, 0 long year taxes paid, state pays for the old men prision sentance, maybe legal fee's if he is bankrupt after the whole situation. So in this situation you could say one gun costed the state/government millions of $ and they can barly do anything to stop this kind of situations in the future.

Absolute tragedy made even worse by the man refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 04:06 PM ----------

as nightmarish as this thread is with people thinking it's okay to murder people for no other reason than paranoia I just have one question to ask you. Why would you suicide bumrush in this situation? Cause if you actually thought that there was ANY reason for you to feel threatened and in any danger you wouldn't bumrush the car that you asumed were filled to the brim with gangsters and weapons without knowing that there was no way in hell you would ever make it out alive. Instead of you know, staying in the bastion that was your house.

So unless you are extremly suicidal and just take down as many as possible with you, then it makes no sense to act that way, unless ofcourse you knew they were completly harmless and wanted to take out your aggression on someone you knew had no means of fighting back.

Of course it is. Since with stricter gun regulations he would have not have the gun legaly, making this whole situation avoidable. And before you go on the "well he can just buy it illegal" im sure a 69 year old won't do it. And the worst thing about this whole case is, even if he gets convicted, he won't prob make it 10 years inside, while the "kid" will still be dead, making any finiancial estimate on how much the whole situation costed the state just mindblowing. As in he died young, 0 long year taxes paid, state pays for the old men prision sentance, maybe legal fee's if he is bankrupt after the whole situation. So in this situation you could say one gun costed the state/government millions of $ and they can barly do anything to stop this kind of situations in the future.

Most could agree that this guy was not fit to be armed with a gun. Problem is, if we disallow him from having a gun, who is allowed to own guns?

Most could agree that this guy was not fit to be armed with a gun. Problem is, if we disallow him from having a gun, who is allowed to own guns?

Problem is not only "who is allowed" but also "how and when to use a gun". If in any scanario you first action is to pull the gun, it doesn't work and you will have situations like this. If people are taught to use the gun only as a last viable option then the old man would have asked question before pulling the gun.

ps: The last part about understanding and learning is the hardest part, legislation can be voted/adopted in a fraction of time, but learning takes generations.